Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8201075" data-attributes="member: 16814">Yup.&nbsp; I will run, and play, pretty much the same in a 5e, Pathfinder, or WHFRP game, just using some different mechanics when I, the GM, decide to use them or when I, the player, need to level up/use a power.&nbsp; The actual approach to play is very similar, so I can see how, if your experience is only in these games, that the concept of &quot;system doesn't matter&quot; can arise -- you're mostly doing the same stuff in all of them, so it's more stage decoration.&nbsp; I think this is flawed, though, in that there are significant differences in how these games articulate game priorities, but this is usually papered over or outright ignored if a given system fails to meet up with the GM's assumptions or desires.&nbsp; Take a look at the threads over in 5e where people complain 5e is &quot;easy mode&quot; and then argue vehemently about the encounter math that has a clear assumption that they're not following.&nbsp; These things are only noted when how you want to run the game isn't supported by how the game was designed to run -- and then are usually met by houserules to enforce the wanted operation.If you step outside that narrow approach that is, admittedly, very popular, then it becomes immediately apparent that system does matter, and you learn that you should pick a system that lines up with your wants rather than a system that doesn't, but you can complain and house-rule.&nbsp; Until this learning happens, though, you get the angry responses that enough house-ruling makes a favored system do whatever.&nbsp; Mostly, I can lay this at the feet of the presumed knowledge -- if I've done a thing for years or decades, then surely I know what I'm talking about, and what you're saying doesn't match my understanding (which is learned), so you're clearly incorrect!&nbsp; It's a hard pill to swallow, after a time, that your experience may be deep, but it's also narrow.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8201075, member: 16814"] Yup. I will run, and play, pretty much the same in a 5e, Pathfinder, or WHFRP game, just using some different mechanics when I, the GM, decide to use them or when I, the player, need to level up/use a power. The actual approach to play is very similar, so I can see how, if your experience is only in these games, that the concept of "system doesn't matter" can arise -- you're mostly doing the same stuff in all of them, so it's more stage decoration. I think this is flawed, though, in that there are significant differences in how these games articulate game priorities, but this is usually papered over or outright ignored if a given system fails to meet up with the GM's assumptions or desires. Take a look at the threads over in 5e where people complain 5e is "easy mode" and then argue vehemently about the encounter math that has a clear assumption that they're not following. These things are only noted when how you want to run the game isn't supported by how the game was designed to run -- and then are usually met by houserules to enforce the wanted operation. If you step outside that narrow approach that is, admittedly, very popular, then it becomes immediately apparent that system does matter, and you learn that you should pick a system that lines up with your wants rather than a system that doesn't, but you can complain and house-rule. Until this learning happens, though, you get the angry responses that enough house-ruling makes a favored system do whatever. Mostly, I can lay this at the feet of the presumed knowledge -- if I've done a thing for years or decades, then surely I know what I'm talking about, and what you're saying doesn't match my understanding (which is learned), so you're clearly incorrect! It's a hard pill to swallow, after a time, that your experience may be deep, but it's also narrow. [/QUOTE]

Verification